Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 1431	control, N = 721	treatment, N = 711	p-value2
age	141	50.75 ± 12.64 (25 - 74)	51.24 ± 12.39 (25 - 74)	50.28 ± 12.96 (28 - 73)	0.653
Unknown		2	2	0
gender	143				0.879
f		110 (77%)	55 (76%)	55 (77%)
m		33 (23%)	17 (24%)	16 (23%)
occupation	143				0.688
day_training		2 (1.4%)	2 (2.8%)	0 (0%)
full_time		18 (13%)	9 (12%)	9 (13%)
homemaker		12 (8.4%)	5 (6.9%)	7 (9.9%)
other		2 (1.4%)	0 (0%)	2 (2.8%)
part_time		26 (18%)	12 (17%)	14 (20%)
retired		38 (27%)	19 (26%)	19 (27%)
self_employ		7 (4.9%)	4 (5.6%)	3 (4.2%)
student		2 (1.4%)	0 (0%)	2 (2.8%)
t_and_e		2 (1.4%)	1 (1.4%)	1 (1.4%)
unemploy		34 (24%)	20 (28%)	14 (20%)
marital	143				0.792
cohabitation		1 (0.7%)	0 (0%)	1 (1.4%)
divore		15 (10%)	10 (14%)	5 (7.0%)
in_relationship		4 (2.8%)	2 (2.8%)	2 (2.8%)
married		39 (27%)	20 (28%)	19 (27%)
none		72 (50%)	34 (47%)	38 (54%)
seperation		3 (2.1%)	2 (2.8%)	1 (1.4%)
widow		9 (6.3%)	4 (5.6%)	5 (7.0%)
edu	143				0.197
bachelor		35 (24%)	13 (18%)	22 (31%)
diploma		27 (19%)	18 (25%)	9 (13%)
hd_ad		4 (2.8%)	3 (4.2%)	1 (1.4%)
postgraduate		12 (8.4%)	5 (6.9%)	7 (9.9%)
primary		9 (6.3%)	3 (4.2%)	6 (8.5%)
secondary_1_3		16 (11%)	9 (12%)	7 (9.9%)
secondary_4_5		33 (23%)	19 (26%)	14 (20%)
secondary_6_7		7 (4.9%)	2 (2.8%)	5 (7.0%)
fam_income	143				0.981
10001_12000		6 (4.2%)	2 (2.8%)	4 (5.6%)
12001_14000		7 (4.9%)	3 (4.2%)	4 (5.6%)
14001_16000		8 (5.6%)	3 (4.2%)	5 (7.0%)
16001_18000		4 (2.8%)	2 (2.8%)	2 (2.8%)
18001_20000		6 (4.2%)	4 (5.6%)	2 (2.8%)
20001_above		27 (19%)	15 (21%)	12 (17%)
2001_4000		20 (14%)	11 (15%)	9 (13%)
4001_6000		14 (9.8%)	6 (8.3%)	8 (11%)
6001_8000		12 (8.4%)	7 (9.7%)	5 (7.0%)
8001_10000		11 (7.7%)	5 (6.9%)	6 (8.5%)
below_2000		28 (20%)	14 (19%)	14 (20%)
medication	143	125 (87%)	63 (88%)	62 (87%)	0.975
onset_duration	140	15.08 ± 10.20 (0 - 56)	15.80 ± 10.86 (0 - 56)	14.33 ± 9.47 (0 - 35)	0.396
Unknown		3	0	3
onset_age	138	35.89 ± 14.04 (10 - 65)	35.28 ± 12.65 (10 - 61)	36.52 ± 15.41 (14 - 65)	0.604
Unknown		5	2	3
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 1431	control, N = 721	treatment, N = 711	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	143	3.19 ± 1.17 (1 - 5)	3.25 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)	3.13 ± 1.11 (1 - 5)	0.530
recovery_stage_b	143	17.92 ± 2.79 (8 - 24)	17.89 ± 2.91 (8 - 24)	17.94 ± 2.68 (13 - 24)	0.907
ras_confidence	143	29.97 ± 5.13 (15 - 45)	29.83 ± 4.84 (15 - 40)	30.11 ± 5.43 (18 - 45)	0.746
ras_willingness	143	11.78 ± 2.07 (5 - 15)	11.67 ± 2.06 (5 - 15)	11.90 ± 2.10 (7 - 15)	0.500
ras_goal	143	17.34 ± 3.09 (11 - 25)	17.12 ± 2.88 (11 - 24)	17.55 ± 3.30 (11 - 25)	0.414
ras_reliance	143	13.17 ± 2.93 (5 - 20)	12.99 ± 2.79 (5 - 18)	13.37 ± 3.07 (7 - 20)	0.439
ras_domination	143	9.90 ± 2.41 (3 - 15)	10.17 ± 2.30 (3 - 15)	9.63 ± 2.50 (3 - 15)	0.187
symptom	143	29.97 ± 9.32 (14 - 56)	29.81 ± 9.60 (14 - 55)	30.13 ± 9.08 (15 - 56)	0.838
slof_work	143	22.45 ± 4.82 (10 - 30)	22.75 ± 4.43 (13 - 30)	22.15 ± 5.21 (10 - 30)	0.463
slof_relationship	143	25.10 ± 6.02 (9 - 35)	24.82 ± 6.05 (9 - 35)	25.38 ± 6.03 (11 - 35)	0.580
satisfaction	143	20.50 ± 7.19 (5 - 35)	19.93 ± 6.77 (5 - 33)	21.07 ± 7.59 (5 - 35)	0.345
mhc_emotional	143	10.87 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)	10.64 ± 3.69 (3 - 17)	11.11 ± 3.93 (3 - 18)	0.459
mhc_social	143	14.93 ± 5.66 (5 - 30)	14.67 ± 5.59 (5 - 30)	15.20 ± 5.75 (5 - 29)	0.577
mhc_psychological	143	21.87 ± 6.43 (6 - 36)	21.78 ± 6.07 (7 - 36)	21.97 ± 6.82 (6 - 36)	0.858
resilisnce	143	16.64 ± 4.70 (6 - 30)	16.26 ± 4.18 (6 - 24)	17.01 ± 5.18 (6 - 30)	0.342
social_provision	143	13.50 ± 2.93 (5 - 20)	13.10 ± 2.63 (5 - 20)	13.90 ± 3.17 (5 - 20)	0.101
els_value_living	143	16.92 ± 3.15 (5 - 25)	16.58 ± 2.92 (6 - 22)	17.27 ± 3.35 (5 - 25)	0.195
els_life_fulfill	143	12.71 ± 3.42 (4 - 20)	12.35 ± 3.26 (5 - 19)	13.07 ± 3.57 (4 - 20)	0.208
els	143	29.63 ± 5.98 (9 - 45)	28.93 ± 5.50 (11 - 38)	30.34 ± 6.40 (9 - 45)	0.160
social_connect	143	26.65 ± 9.53 (8 - 48)	26.75 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)	26.55 ± 9.93 (8 - 48)	0.900
shs_agency	143	14.24 ± 5.19 (3 - 24)	13.90 ± 4.77 (3 - 21)	14.58 ± 5.61 (3 - 24)	0.439
shs_pathway	143	15.99 ± 4.07 (4 - 24)	15.65 ± 3.92 (5 - 24)	16.34 ± 4.21 (4 - 24)	0.315
shs	143	30.23 ± 8.86 (7 - 48)	29.56 ± 8.32 (8 - 45)	30.92 ± 9.39 (7 - 48)	0.361
esteem	143	12.60 ± 1.64 (9 - 20)	12.62 ± 1.62 (9 - 18)	12.58 ± 1.66 (10 - 20)	0.863
mlq_search	143	14.81 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)	14.64 ± 3.34 (6 - 21)	14.99 ± 3.70 (3 - 21)	0.557
mlq_presence	143	13.40 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)	13.32 ± 3.81 (4 - 21)	13.48 ± 4.69 (3 - 21)	0.824
mlq	143	28.21 ± 6.94 (6 - 42)	27.96 ± 6.31 (10 - 40)	28.46 ± 7.56 (6 - 42)	0.664
empower	143	19.23 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)	18.93 ± 4.15 (11 - 30)	19.54 ± 4.36 (6 - 30)	0.397
ismi_resistance	143	14.50 ± 2.54 (5 - 20)	14.47 ± 2.19 (10 - 20)	14.52 ± 2.87 (5 - 20)	0.909
ismi_discrimation	143	11.63 ± 3.13 (5 - 20)	11.97 ± 3.00 (5 - 20)	11.28 ± 3.24 (5 - 20)	0.188
sss_affective	143	9.99 ± 3.58 (3 - 18)	10.01 ± 3.49 (3 - 18)	9.97 ± 3.68 (3 - 18)	0.944
sss_behavior	143	9.71 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)	9.88 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)	9.55 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)	0.608
sss_cognitive	143	8.27 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)	8.26 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)	8.27 ± 3.83 (3 - 18)	0.995
sss	143	27.97 ± 10.29 (9 - 54)	28.15 ± 10.19 (9 - 54)	27.79 ± 10.47 (9 - 54)	0.833
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).

## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.25	0.138	2.98, 3.52
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.123	0.196	-0.508, 0.261	0.531
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.021	0.215	-0.401, 0.443	0.922
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.468	0.305	-0.130, 1.07	0.128
	Pseudo R square	0.018
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.9	0.337	17.2, 18.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.055	0.478	-0.882, 0.992	0.909
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.493	0.482	-1.44, 0.451	0.309
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.987	0.682	-0.349, 2.32	0.151
	Pseudo R square	0.010
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.8	0.605	28.6, 31.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.279	0.859	-1.40, 1.96	0.745
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.766	0.672	-0.551, 2.08	0.258
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.00	0.950	-0.862, 2.86	0.296
	Pseudo R square	0.018
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.7	0.244	11.2, 12.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.235	0.346	-0.444, 0.913	0.499
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.402	0.269	-0.929, 0.124	0.139
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.679	0.380	-0.066, 1.42	0.078
	Pseudo R square	0.017
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.1	0.372	16.4, 17.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.424	0.528	-0.611, 1.46	0.423
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.116	0.466	-1.03, 0.797	0.804
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.02	0.659	-0.269, 2.31	0.125
	Pseudo R square	0.022
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.0	0.339	12.3, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.380	0.481	-0.563, 1.32	0.431
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.374	0.371	-0.354, 1.10	0.317
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.834	0.525	-0.195, 1.86	0.117
	Pseudo R square	0.032
ras_domination	(Intercept)	10.2	0.276	9.63, 10.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.533	0.392	-1.30, 0.235	0.175
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.431	0.378	-1.17, 0.310	0.258
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.43	0.535	0.382, 2.48	0.009
	Pseudo R square	0.023
symptom	(Intercept)	29.8	1.104	27.6, 32.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.321	1.566	-2.75, 3.39	0.838
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.320	0.949	-2.18, 1.54	0.737
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.39	1.342	-4.02, 1.24	0.302
	Pseudo R square	0.004
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.8	0.568	21.6, 23.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.595	0.807	-2.18, 0.986	0.462
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.351	0.625	-1.58, 0.875	0.577
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.542	0.885	-1.19, 2.28	0.542
	Pseudo R square	0.003
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	24.8	0.707	23.4, 26.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.561	1.004	-1.41, 2.53	0.577
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.549	0.747	-2.01, 0.914	0.464
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.01	1.056	-1.06, 3.08	0.341
	Pseudo R square	0.007
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.9	0.852	18.3, 21.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.14	1.210	-1.23, 3.51	0.347
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.670	0.911	-1.12, 2.46	0.465
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.632	1.289	-1.89, 3.16	0.625
	Pseudo R square	0.013
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.6	0.444	9.77, 11.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.474	0.630	-0.761, 1.71	0.453
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.262	0.447	-0.614, 1.14	0.560
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.003	0.632	-1.24, 1.24	0.996
	Pseudo R square	0.005
mhc_social	(Intercept)	14.7	0.687	13.3, 16.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.531	0.975	-1.38, 2.44	0.587
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.776	0.757	-0.707, 2.26	0.308
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.282	1.070	-1.82, 2.38	0.793
	Pseudo R square	0.008
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.8	0.786	20.2, 23.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.194	1.115	-1.99, 2.38	0.862
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.804	0.873	-0.907, 2.52	0.360
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.056	1.235	-2.36, 2.48	0.964
	Pseudo R square	0.004
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.3	0.541	15.2, 17.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.750	0.767	-0.753, 2.25	0.330
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.036	0.625	-1.19, 1.26	0.955
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.75	0.885	0.020, 3.49	0.051
	Pseudo R square	0.035
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.1	0.344	12.4, 13.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.804	0.488	-0.153, 1.76	0.102
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.635	0.416	-1.45, 0.180	0.131
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.892	0.589	-0.262, 2.05	0.134
	Pseudo R square	0.039
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.6	0.374	15.9, 17.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.684	0.530	-0.355, 1.72	0.199
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.232	0.420	-0.591, 1.05	0.583
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.195	0.594	-0.969, 1.36	0.744
	Pseudo R square	0.016
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.3	0.396	11.6, 13.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.723	0.562	-0.378, 1.82	0.200
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.377	0.386	-0.380, 1.13	0.333
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.096	0.546	-0.974, 1.17	0.861
	Pseudo R square	0.016
els	(Intercept)	28.9	0.704	27.6, 30.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.41	1.000	-0.552, 3.37	0.161
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.612	0.655	-0.672, 1.90	0.353
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.213	0.927	-1.60, 2.03	0.819
	Pseudo R square	0.018
social_connect	(Intercept)	26.8	1.138	24.5, 29.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.201	1.616	-3.37, 2.97	0.901
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.07	1.058	-1.00, 3.15	0.314
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.79	1.497	-6.73, -0.858	0.014
	Pseudo R square	0.015
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.9	0.611	12.7, 15.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.675	0.867	-1.02, 2.37	0.438
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.058	0.593	-1.22, 1.10	0.922
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.913	0.839	-0.731, 2.56	0.280
	Pseudo R square	0.011
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	15.7	0.473	14.7, 16.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.685	0.671	-0.630, 2.00	0.309
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.107	0.478	-0.829, 1.04	0.823
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.140	0.676	-1.19, 1.46	0.837
	Pseudo R square	0.009
shs	(Intercept)	29.6	1.034	27.5, 31.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.36	1.468	-1.52, 4.24	0.356
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.037	0.983	-1.89, 1.96	0.970
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.04	1.391	-1.68, 3.77	0.456
	Pseudo R square	0.011
esteem	(Intercept)	12.6	0.182	12.3, 13.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.048	0.258	-0.553, 0.458	0.854
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.128	0.276	-0.413, 0.668	0.644
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.036	0.390	-0.729, 0.800	0.928
	Pseudo R square	0.002
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.6	0.412	13.8, 15.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.347	0.585	-0.799, 1.49	0.554
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.489	0.529	-0.549, 1.53	0.359
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.699	0.749	-2.17, 0.769	0.354
	Pseudo R square	0.003
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.3	0.500	12.3, 14.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.159	0.709	-1.23, 1.55	0.822
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.348	0.573	-0.775, 1.47	0.546
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.077	0.811	-1.51, 1.67	0.924
	Pseudo R square	0.002
mlq	(Intercept)	28.0	0.824	26.3, 29.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.506	1.170	-1.79, 2.80	0.666
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.838	0.966	-1.06, 2.73	0.388
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.609	1.367	-3.29, 2.07	0.657
	Pseudo R square	0.002
empower	(Intercept)	18.9	0.498	18.0, 19.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.605	0.706	-0.779, 1.99	0.393
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.539	0.497	-0.435, 1.51	0.282
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.611	0.702	-1.99, 0.766	0.387
	Pseudo R square	0.004
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.5	0.296	13.9, 15.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.049	0.420	-0.774, 0.871	0.907
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.182	0.398	-0.963, 0.598	0.649
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.877	0.563	-0.227, 1.98	0.123
	Pseudo R square	0.013
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	12.0	0.369	11.2, 12.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.691	0.524	-1.72, 0.337	0.190
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.131	0.413	-0.940, 0.678	0.752
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.106	0.584	-1.25, 1.04	0.856
	Pseudo R square	0.014
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.0	0.418	9.20, 10.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.042	0.593	-1.20, 1.12	0.944
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.010	0.455	-0.882, 0.902	0.983
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.18	0.644	-2.44, 0.085	0.072
	Pseudo R square	0.015
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	9.88	0.441	9.01, 10.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.326	0.626	-1.55, 0.901	0.604
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.167	0.478	-1.10, 0.769	0.728
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.528	0.676	-1.85, 0.797	0.437
	Pseudo R square	0.008
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.26	0.438	7.41, 9.12
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.004	0.621	-1.21, 1.22	0.995
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.414	0.486	-0.538, 1.37	0.397
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.30	0.687	-2.64, 0.051	0.063
	Pseudo R square	0.010
sss	(Intercept)	28.2	1.205	25.8, 30.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.364	1.710	-3.71, 2.99	0.832
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.155	1.188	-2.17, 2.48	0.896
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.78	1.681	-6.08, 0.512	0.102
	Pseudo R square	0.011
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.25 (95% CI [2.98, 3.52], t(201) = 23.51, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.26], t(201) = -0.63, p = 0.530; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.22])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.44], t(201) = 0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.07], t(201) = 1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.90])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.89 (95% CI [17.23, 18.55], t(201) = 53.11, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.99], t(201) = 0.11, p = 0.909; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.35])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.45], t(201) = -1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.16])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.32], t(201) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.82])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.83 (95% CI [28.65, 31.02], t(201) = 49.31, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.40, 1.96], t(201) = 0.33, p = 0.745; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.38])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.55, 2.08], t(201) = 1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.86, 2.86], t(201) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.56])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.67 (95% CI [11.19, 12.14], t(201) = 47.83, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.91], t(201) = 0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.12], t(201) = -1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.06])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.42], t(201) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.69])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.13 (95% CI [16.40, 17.85], t(201) = 46.01, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.46], t(201) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.80], t(201) = -0.25, p = 0.803; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 2.31], t(201) = 1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.73])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.99 (95% CI [12.32, 13.65], t(201) = 38.30, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.56, 1.32], t(201) = 0.79, p = 0.430; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.10], t(201) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.86], t(201) = 1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.64])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.17 (95% CI [9.63, 10.71], t(201) = 36.84, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.23], t(201) = -1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.10])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.31], t(201) = -1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.13])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.43, 95% CI [0.38, 2.48], t(201) = 2.67, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [0.16, 1.07])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.81 (95% CI [27.64, 31.97], t(201) = 27.01, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-2.75, 3.39], t(201) = 0.21, p = 0.837; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-2.18, 1.54], t(201) = -0.34, p = 0.736; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.16])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.39, 95% CI [-4.02, 1.24], t(201) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.13])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.75 (95% CI [21.64, 23.86], t(201) = 40.03, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-2.18, 0.99], t(201) = -0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.21])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.87], t(201) = -0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.18])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.19, 2.28], t(201) = 0.61, p = 0.540; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.47])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.82 (95% CI [23.43, 26.21], t(201) = 35.10, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-1.41, 2.53], t(201) = 0.56, p = 0.576; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-2.01, 0.91], t(201) = -0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.15])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.06, 3.08], t(201) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.52])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.93 (95% CI [18.26, 21.60], t(201) = 23.38, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-1.23, 3.51], t(201) = 0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.46], t(201) = 0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-1.89, 3.16], t(201) = 0.49, p = 0.624; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.44])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.64 (95% CI [9.77, 11.51], t(201) = 23.96, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.71], t(201) = 0.75, p = 0.452; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.14], t(201) = 0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.07e-03, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.24], t(201) = 4.86e-03, p = 0.996; Std. beta = 8.16e-04, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.20e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.67 (95% CI [13.32, 16.01], t(201) = 21.34, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.44], t(201) = 0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.26], t(201) = 1.03, p = 0.305; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.82, 2.38], t(201) = 0.26, p = 0.792; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.41])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.78 (95% CI [20.24, 23.32], t(201) = 27.71, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.99, 2.38], t(201) = 0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.52], t(201) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.36, 2.48], t(201) = 0.05, p = 0.964; Std. beta = 8.53e-03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.37])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.26 (95% CI [15.20, 17.32], t(201) = 30.09, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.25], t(201) = 0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.26], t(201) = 0.06, p = 0.954; Std. beta = 7.80e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.75, 95% CI [0.02, 3.49], t(201) = 1.98, p = 0.047; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [4.42e-03, 0.76])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.10 (95% CI [12.42, 13.77], t(201) = 38.06, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.76], t(201) = 1.65, p = 0.100; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.59])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.18], t(201) = -1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.06])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.26, 2.05], t(201) = 1.52, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.69])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.58 (95% CI [15.85, 17.32], t(201) = 44.36, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.36, 1.72], t(201) = 1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.54])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.05], t(201) = 0.55, p = 0.581; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.97, 1.36], t(201) = 0.33, p = 0.743; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.43])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.35 (95% CI [11.57, 13.12], t(201) = 31.19, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.82], t(201) = 1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.55])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.13], t(201) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.97, 1.17], t(201) = 0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.35])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.93 (95% CI [27.55, 30.31], t(201) = 41.07, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [-0.55, 3.37], t(201) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.56])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.90], t(201) = 0.93, p = 0.350; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.60, 2.03], t(201) = 0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.34])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.75 (95% CI [24.52, 28.98], t(201) = 23.50, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-3.37, 2.97], t(201) = -0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-1.00, 3.15], t(201) = 1.01, p = 0.311; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.79, 95% CI [-6.73, -0.86], t(201) = -2.53, p = 0.011; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.69, -0.09])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.90 (95% CI [12.71, 15.10], t(201) = 22.76, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.02, 2.37], t(201) = 0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.10], t(201) = -0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.22])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.56], t(201) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.50])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.70e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.65 (95% CI [14.73, 16.58], t(201) = 33.10, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.00], t(201) = 1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.04], t(201) = 0.22, p = 0.822; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.46], t(201) = 0.21, p = 0.836; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.37])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.56 (95% CI [27.53, 31.58], t(201) = 28.57, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.36, 95% CI [-1.52, 4.24], t(201) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.89, 1.96], t(201) = 0.04, p = 0.970; Std. beta = 4.24e-03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-1.68, 3.77], t(201) = 0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.43])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.08e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.62 (95% CI [12.27, 12.98], t(201) = 69.52, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.46], t(201) = -0.18, p = 0.854; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.67], t(201) = 0.46, p = 0.643; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.80], t(201) = 0.09, p = 0.927; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.53])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.64 (95% CI [13.83, 15.45], t(201) = 35.52, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.49], t(201) = 0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.43])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.53], t(201) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-2.17, 0.77], t(201) = -0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.22])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.32 (95% CI [12.34, 14.30], t(201) = 26.65, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.55], t(201) = 0.22, p = 0.822; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.47], t(201) = 0.61, p = 0.544; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.35])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.67], t(201) = 0.10, p = 0.924; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.40])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.18e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.96 (95% CI [26.34, 29.57], t(201) = 33.92, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.79, 2.80], t(201) = 0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.40])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-1.06, 2.73], t(201) = 0.87, p = 0.386; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-3.29, 2.07], t(201) = -0.45, p = 0.656; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.30])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.93 (95% CI [17.96, 19.91], t(201) = 38.04, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.99], t(201) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.48])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.51], t(201) = 1.08, p = 0.278; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.77], t(201) = -0.87, p = 0.384; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.18])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.47 (95% CI [13.89, 15.05], t(201) = 48.94, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.87], t(201) = 0.12, p = 0.907; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.60], t(201) = -0.46, p = 0.648; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.98], t(201) = 1.56, p = 0.120; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.78])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.97 (95% CI [11.25, 12.70], t(201) = 32.41, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.72, 0.34], t(201) = -1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.11])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.68], t(201) = -0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.21])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.04], t(201) = -0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.33])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.01 (95% CI [9.20, 10.83], t(201) = 23.97, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.12], t(201) = -0.07, p = 0.943; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 9.90e-03, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.90], t(201) = 0.02, p = 0.983; Std. beta = 2.76e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-2.44, 0.09], t(201) = -1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.02])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.14e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.88 (95% CI [9.01, 10.74], t(201) = 22.38, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.90], t(201) = -0.52, p = 0.603; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.24])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.77], t(201) = -0.35, p = 0.727; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.85, 0.80], t(201) = -0.78, p = 0.435; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.21])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.26 (95% CI [7.41, 9.12], t(201) = 18.88, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.72e-03, 95% CI [-1.21, 1.22], t(201) = 5.98e-03, p = 0.995; Std. beta = 9.92e-04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.33])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.37], t(201) = 0.85, p = 0.394; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.30, 95% CI [-2.64, 0.05], t(201) = -1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.01])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.15 (95% CI [25.79, 30.51], t(201) = 23.37, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-3.71, 2.99], t(201) = -0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.29])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-2.17, 2.48], t(201) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.78, 95% CI [-6.08, 0.51], t(201) = -1.66, p = 0.098; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.05])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	652.713	662.711	-323.356	646.713
recovery_stage_a	random	6	653.611	673.607	-320.806	641.611	5.102	3	0.165
recovery_stage_b	null	3	1,011.116	1,021.115	-502.558	1,005.116
recovery_stage_b	random	6	1,014.483	1,034.479	-501.241	1,002.483	2.634	3	0.452
ras_confidence	null	3	1,231.791	1,241.790	-612.896	1,225.791
ras_confidence	random	6	1,229.286	1,249.282	-608.643	1,217.286	8.506	3	0.037
ras_willingness	null	3	851.093	861.091	-422.547	845.093
ras_willingness	random	6	852.323	872.319	-420.162	840.323	4.770	3	0.189
ras_goal	null	3	1,041.422	1,051.420	-517.711	1,035.422
ras_goal	random	6	1,041.721	1,061.717	-514.860	1,029.721	5.701	3	0.127
ras_reliance	null	3	994.704	1,004.702	-494.352	988.704
ras_reliance	random	6	987.991	1,007.987	-487.995	975.991	12.713	3	0.005
ras_domination	null	3	929.653	939.651	-461.827	923.653
ras_domination	random	6	927.598	947.594	-457.799	915.598	8.055	3	0.045
symptom	null	3	1,444.971	1,454.969	-719.485	1,438.971
symptom	random	6	1,447.575	1,467.571	-717.787	1,435.575	3.396	3	0.334
slof_work	null	3	1,197.123	1,207.121	-595.561	1,191.123
slof_work	random	6	1,202.347	1,222.343	-595.173	1,190.347	0.776	3	0.855
slof_relationship	null	3	1,283.676	1,293.674	-638.838	1,277.676
slof_relationship	random	6	1,288.032	1,308.028	-638.016	1,276.032	1.644	3	0.649
satisfaction	null	3	1,364.631	1,374.629	-679.315	1,358.631
satisfaction	random	6	1,366.779	1,386.775	-677.389	1,354.779	3.852	3	0.278
mhc_emotional	null	3	1,084.968	1,094.967	-539.484	1,078.968
mhc_emotional	random	6	1,089.651	1,109.647	-538.825	1,077.651	1.318	3	0.725
mhc_social	null	3	1,278.561	1,288.559	-636.280	1,272.561
mhc_social	random	6	1,281.118	1,301.114	-634.559	1,269.118	3.443	3	0.328
mhc_psychological	null	3	1,333.582	1,343.580	-663.791	1,327.582
mhc_psychological	random	6	1,337.692	1,357.688	-662.846	1,325.692	1.890	3	0.596
resilisnce	null	3	1,191.850	1,201.848	-592.925	1,185.850
resilisnce	random	6	1,187.380	1,207.376	-587.690	1,175.380	10.470	3	0.015
social_provision	null	3	1,007.032	1,017.030	-500.516	1,001.032
social_provision	random	6	1,005.476	1,025.473	-496.738	993.476	7.556	3	0.056
els_value_living	null	3	1,028.705	1,038.703	-511.353	1,022.705
els_value_living	random	6	1,031.289	1,051.285	-509.644	1,019.289	3.416	3	0.332
els_life_fulfill	null	3	1,036.701	1,046.699	-515.351	1,030.701
els_life_fulfill	random	6	1,038.338	1,058.335	-513.169	1,026.338	4.363	3	0.225
els	null	3	1,270.043	1,280.041	-632.021	1,264.043
els	random	6	1,271.308	1,291.304	-629.654	1,259.308	4.735	3	0.192
social_connect	null	3	1,471.966	1,481.964	-732.983	1,465.966
social_connect	random	6	1,469.929	1,489.925	-728.964	1,457.929	8.037	3	0.045
shs_agency	null	3	1,214.678	1,224.676	-604.339	1,208.678
shs_agency	random	6	1,217.428	1,237.424	-602.714	1,205.428	3.250	3	0.355
shs_pathway	null	3	1,111.779	1,121.777	-552.889	1,105.779
shs_pathway	random	6	1,116.229	1,136.226	-552.115	1,104.229	1.549	3	0.671
shs	null	3	1,429.503	1,439.501	-711.751	1,423.503
shs	random	6	1,432.999	1,452.995	-710.499	1,420.999	2.504	3	0.475
esteem	null	3	758.939	768.937	-376.469	752.939
esteem	random	6	764.335	784.331	-376.167	752.335	0.604	3	0.896
mlq_search	null	3	1,081.982	1,091.980	-537.991	1,075.982
mlq_search	random	6	1,086.855	1,106.851	-537.428	1,074.855	1.126	3	0.771
mlq_presence	null	3	1,148.965	1,158.963	-571.482	1,142.965
mlq_presence	random	6	1,153.955	1,173.952	-570.978	1,141.955	1.009	3	0.799
mlq	null	3	1,358.510	1,368.508	-676.255	1,352.510
mlq	random	6	1,363.581	1,383.577	-675.790	1,351.581	0.930	3	0.818
empower	null	3	1,131.526	1,141.524	-562.763	1,125.526
empower	random	6	1,135.850	1,155.846	-561.925	1,123.850	1.676	3	0.642
ismi_resistance	null	3	952.196	962.194	-473.098	946.196
ismi_resistance	random	6	954.423	974.419	-471.211	942.423	3.773	3	0.287
ismi_discrimation	null	3	1,022.208	1,032.206	-508.104	1,016.208
ismi_discrimation	random	6	1,025.774	1,045.770	-506.887	1,013.774	2.434	3	0.487
sss_affective	null	3	1,074.728	1,084.727	-534.364	1,068.728
sss_affective	random	6	1,073.820	1,093.816	-530.910	1,061.820	6.909	3	0.075
sss_behavior	null	3	1,092.453	1,102.451	-543.226	1,086.453
sss_behavior	random	6	1,095.615	1,115.611	-541.807	1,083.615	2.838	3	0.417
sss_cognitive	null	3	1,093.615	1,103.613	-543.808	1,087.615
sss_cognitive	random	6	1,095.276	1,115.272	-541.638	1,083.276	4.339	3	0.227
sss	null	3	1,499.796	1,509.794	-746.898	1,493.796
sss	random	6	1,500.469	1,520.465	-744.234	1,488.469	5.327	3	0.149

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	72	3.25 ± 1.17		71	3.13 ± 1.17		0.531	0.129
recovery_stage_a	2nd	32	3.27 ± 1.14	-0.022	32	3.62 ± 1.14	-0.512	0.230	-0.361
recovery_stage_b	1st	72	17.89 ± 2.86		71	17.94 ± 2.86		0.909	-0.026
recovery_stage_b	2nd	32	17.40 ± 2.70	0.236	32	18.44 ± 2.70	-0.237	0.124	-0.499
ras_confidence	1st	72	29.83 ± 5.13		71	30.11 ± 5.13		0.745	-0.100
ras_confidence	2nd	32	30.60 ± 4.39	-0.273	32	31.88 ± 4.40	-0.629	0.246	-0.456
ras_willingness	1st	72	11.67 ± 2.07		71	11.90 ± 2.07		0.499	-0.209
ras_willingness	2nd	32	11.26 ± 1.76	0.359	32	12.18 ± 1.77	-0.247	0.040	-0.815
ras_goal	1st	72	17.13 ± 3.16		71	17.55 ± 3.16		0.423	-0.215
ras_goal	2nd	32	17.01 ± 2.82	0.059	32	18.46 ± 2.83	-0.459	0.042	-0.733
ras_reliance	1st	72	12.99 ± 2.88		71	13.37 ± 2.88		0.431	-0.245
ras_reliance	2nd	32	13.36 ± 2.45	-0.242	32	14.57 ± 2.45	-0.780	0.049	-0.784
ras_domination	1st	72	10.17 ± 2.34		71	9.63 ± 2.34		0.175	0.328
ras_domination	2nd	32	9.74 ± 2.17	0.265	32	10.63 ± 2.17	-0.615	0.100	-0.552
symptom	1st	72	29.81 ± 9.36		71	30.13 ± 9.36		0.838	-0.083
symptom	2nd	32	29.49 ± 7.38	0.082	32	28.41 ± 7.40	0.441	0.562	0.276
slof_work	1st	72	22.75 ± 4.82		71	22.15 ± 4.82		0.462	0.228
slof_work	2nd	32	22.40 ± 4.11	0.134	32	22.35 ± 4.12	-0.073	0.959	0.020
slof_relationship	1st	72	24.82 ± 6.00		71	25.38 ± 6.00		0.577	-0.181
slof_relationship	2nd	32	24.27 ± 5.04	0.177	32	25.84 ± 5.05	-0.149	0.214	-0.507
satisfaction	1st	72	19.93 ± 7.23		71	21.07 ± 7.23		0.347	-0.301
satisfaction	2nd	32	20.60 ± 6.10	-0.177	32	22.37 ± 6.11	-0.343	0.247	-0.467
mhc_emotional	1st	72	10.64 ± 3.77		71	11.11 ± 3.77		0.453	-0.256
mhc_emotional	2nd	32	10.90 ± 3.11	-0.141	32	11.38 ± 3.12	-0.143	0.541	-0.258
mhc_social	1st	72	14.67 ± 5.83		71	15.20 ± 5.83		0.587	-0.168
mhc_social	2nd	32	15.44 ± 4.97	-0.246	32	16.26 ± 4.98	-0.335	0.514	-0.257
mhc_psychological	1st	72	21.78 ± 6.67		71	21.97 ± 6.67		0.862	-0.053
mhc_psychological	2nd	32	22.58 ± 5.70	-0.221	32	22.83 ± 5.71	-0.236	0.861	-0.069
resilisnce	1st	72	16.26 ± 4.59		71	17.01 ± 4.59		0.330	-0.286
resilisnce	2nd	32	16.30 ± 3.98	-0.014	32	18.80 ± 3.99	-0.682	0.013	-0.955
social_provision	1st	72	13.10 ± 2.92		71	13.90 ± 2.92		0.102	-0.458
social_provision	2nd	32	12.46 ± 2.58	0.362	32	14.16 ± 2.58	-0.146	0.009	-0.967
els_value_living	1st	72	16.58 ± 3.17		71	17.27 ± 3.17		0.199	-0.390
els_value_living	2nd	32	16.81 ± 2.72	-0.132	32	17.69 ± 2.73	-0.243	0.198	-0.501
els_life_fulfill	1st	72	12.35 ± 3.36		71	13.07 ± 3.36		0.200	-0.454
els_life_fulfill	2nd	32	12.72 ± 2.75	-0.236	32	13.54 ± 2.75	-0.296	0.235	-0.514
els	1st	72	28.93 ± 5.98		71	30.34 ± 5.98		0.161	-0.521
els	2nd	32	29.54 ± 4.82	-0.227	32	31.16 ± 4.83	-0.306	0.181	-0.600
social_connect	1st	72	26.75 ± 9.66		71	26.55 ± 9.66		0.901	0.046
social_connect	2nd	32	27.82 ± 7.78	-0.246	32	23.83 ± 7.81	0.624	0.042	0.916
shs_agency	1st	72	13.90 ± 5.18		71	14.58 ± 5.18		0.438	-0.276
shs_agency	2nd	32	13.84 ± 4.23	0.024	32	15.43 ± 4.25	-0.349	0.136	-0.648
shs_pathway	1st	72	15.65 ± 4.01		71	16.34 ± 4.01		0.309	-0.346
shs_pathway	2nd	32	15.76 ± 3.32	-0.054	32	16.59 ± 3.33	-0.125	0.322	-0.417
shs	1st	72	29.56 ± 8.78		71	30.92 ± 8.78		0.356	-0.335
shs	2nd	32	29.59 ± 7.12	-0.009	32	32.00 ± 7.14	-0.266	0.179	-0.592
esteem	1st	72	12.62 ± 1.54		71	12.58 ± 1.54		0.854	0.039
esteem	2nd	32	12.75 ± 1.49	-0.106	32	12.74 ± 1.49	-0.135	0.974	0.010
mlq_search	1st	72	14.64 ± 3.50		71	14.99 ± 3.50		0.554	-0.154
mlq_search	2nd	32	15.13 ± 3.16	-0.217	32	14.78 ± 3.16	0.093	0.657	0.156
mlq_presence	1st	72	13.32 ± 4.24		71	13.48 ± 4.24		0.822	-0.066
mlq_presence	2nd	32	13.67 ± 3.67	-0.145	32	13.90 ± 3.68	-0.177	0.797	-0.099
mlq	1st	72	27.96 ± 6.99		71	28.46 ± 6.99		0.666	-0.125
mlq	2nd	32	28.80 ± 6.10	-0.206	32	28.69 ± 6.11	-0.056	0.947	0.025
empower	1st	72	18.93 ± 4.22		71	19.54 ± 4.22		0.393	-0.294
empower	2nd	32	19.47 ± 3.48	-0.262	32	19.46 ± 3.49	0.035	0.994	0.003
ismi_resistance	1st	72	14.47 ± 2.51		71	14.52 ± 2.51		0.907	-0.029
ismi_resistance	2nd	32	14.29 ± 2.31	0.107	32	15.22 ± 2.31	-0.407	0.111	-0.543
ismi_discrimation	1st	72	11.97 ± 3.13		71	11.28 ± 3.13		0.190	0.400
ismi_discrimation	2nd	32	11.84 ± 2.69	0.076	32	11.04 ± 2.69	0.138	0.237	0.462
sss_affective	1st	72	10.01 ± 3.55		71	9.97 ± 3.55		0.944	0.022
sss_affective	2nd	32	10.02 ± 3.01	-0.005	32	8.81 ± 3.02	0.615	0.107	0.642
sss_behavior	1st	72	9.88 ± 3.74		71	9.55 ± 3.74		0.604	0.164
sss_behavior	2nd	32	9.71 ± 3.17	0.084	32	8.85 ± 3.18	0.349	0.284	0.429
sss_cognitive	1st	72	8.26 ± 3.71		71	8.27 ± 3.71		0.995	-0.002
sss_cognitive	2nd	32	8.68 ± 3.17	-0.204	32	7.39 ± 3.18	0.435	0.105	0.637
sss	1st	72	28.15 ± 10.22		71	27.79 ± 10.22		0.832	0.074
sss	2nd	32	28.31 ± 8.39	-0.032	32	25.16 ± 8.41	0.535	0.136	0.640

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(190.25) = -0.63, p = 0.531, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.26)

2st

t(196.37) = 1.20, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.91)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(180.86) = 0.11, p = 0.909, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.00)

2st

t(194.19) = 1.55, p = 0.124, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.29 to 2.37)

ras_confidence

1st

t(162.11) = 0.33, p = 0.745, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.97)

2st

t(199.55) = 1.16, p = 0.246, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.89 to 3.44)

ras_willingness

1st

t(161.71) = 0.68, p = 0.499, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.92)

2st

t(199.79) = 2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.78)

ras_goal

1st

t(169.38) = 0.80, p = 0.423, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.47)

2st

t(195.82) = 2.05, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.05 to 2.84)

ras_reliance

1st

t(161.42) = 0.79, p = 0.431, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.33)

2st

t(199.97) = 1.98, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.01 to 2.42)

ras_domination

1st

t(176.73) = -1.36, p = 0.175, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.24)

2st

t(194.17) = 1.65, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.97)

symptom

1st

t(152.60) = 0.21, p = 0.838, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.77 to 3.42)

2st

t(202.54) = -0.58, p = 0.562, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-4.72 to 2.57)

slof_work

1st

t(161.67) = -0.74, p = 0.462, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.19 to 1.00)

2st

t(199.82) = -0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.08 to 1.97)

slof_relationship

1st

t(159.72) = 0.56, p = 0.577, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.42 to 2.54)

2st

t(200.99) = 1.25, p = 0.214, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.91 to 4.06)

satisfaction

1st

t(160.28) = 0.94, p = 0.347, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.25 to 3.53)

2st

t(200.66) = 1.16, p = 0.247, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.24 to 4.78)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(157.70) = 0.75, p = 0.453, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.72)

2st

t(202.08) = 0.61, p = 0.541, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.06 to 2.01)

mhc_social

1st

t(161.69) = 0.54, p = 0.587, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.40 to 2.46)

2st

t(199.81) = 0.65, p = 0.514, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.64 to 3.27)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(162.15) = 0.17, p = 0.862, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.01 to 2.40)

2st

t(199.53) = 0.18, p = 0.861, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.56 to 3.06)

resilisnce

1st

t(164.36) = 0.98, p = 0.330, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.26)

2st

t(198.23) = 2.51, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.95, 95% CI (0.54 to 4.47)

social_provision

1st

t(167.04) = 1.65, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.77)

2st

t(196.82) = 2.63, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (0.42 to 2.97)

els_value_living

1st

t(162.72) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.73)

2st

t(199.18) = 1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.46 to 2.22)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(156.48) = 1.29, p = 0.200, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.83)

2st

t(202.60) = 1.19, p = 0.235, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.18)

els

1st

t(154.91) = 1.41, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.57 to 3.38)

2st

t(202.98) = 1.34, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.76 to 4.00)

social_connect

1st

t(154.87) = -0.12, p = 0.901, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-3.39 to 2.99)

2st

t(202.98) = -2.05, p = 0.042, Cohen d = 0.92, 95% CI (-7.84 to -0.15)

shs_agency

1st

t(156.34) = 0.78, p = 0.438, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.39)

2st

t(202.65) = 1.50, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.50 to 3.68)

shs_pathway

1st

t(157.87) = 1.02, p = 0.309, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.64 to 2.01)

2st

t(202.00) = 0.99, p = 0.322, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.46)

shs

1st

t(155.61) = 0.93, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.54 to 4.26)

2st

t(202.86) = 1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-1.11 to 5.92)

esteem

1st

t(187.25) = -0.18, p = 0.854, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.46)

2st

t(195.39) = -0.03, p = 0.974, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.72)

mlq_search

1st

t(171.33) = 0.59, p = 0.554, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.50)

2st

t(195.16) = -0.44, p = 0.657, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.91 to 1.21)

mlq_presence

1st

t(163.85) = 0.22, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.56)

2st

t(198.51) = 0.26, p = 0.797, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.57 to 2.05)

mlq

1st

t(165.12) = 0.43, p = 0.666, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.80 to 2.82)

2st

t(197.80) = -0.07, p = 0.947, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-3.11 to 2.91)

empower

1st

t(157.37) = 0.86, p = 0.393, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.00)

2st

t(202.24) = -0.01, p = 0.994, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.72 to 1.71)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(175.21) = 0.12, p = 0.907, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.88)

2st

t(194.33) = 1.60, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.21 to 2.07)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(162.43) = -1.32, p = 0.190, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.34)

2st

t(199.36) = -1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-2.12 to 0.53)

sss_affective

1st

t(161.17) = -0.07, p = 0.944, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.13)

2st

t(200.12) = -1.62, p = 0.107, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.70 to 0.27)

sss_behavior

1st

t(160.88) = -0.52, p = 0.604, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.91)

2st

t(200.30) = -1.08, p = 0.284, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.42 to 0.71)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(162.10) = 0.01, p = 0.995, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.23)

2st

t(199.55) = -1.63, p = 0.105, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.86 to 0.27)

sss

1st

t(156.92) = -0.21, p = 0.832, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-3.74 to 3.01)

2st

t(202.43) = -1.50, p = 0.136, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-7.29 to 1.00)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(97.05) = 2.25, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.92)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(88.10) = 1.02, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.46)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(74.45) = 2.62, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.42 to 3.11)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(74.20) = 1.03, p = 0.616, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.81)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(79.32) = 1.94, p = 0.113, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.84)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(74.01) = 3.24, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.47 to 1.95)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(84.75) = 2.63, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.76)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(68.60) = -1.80, p = 0.152, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.61 to 0.18)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(74.17) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.44)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(72.93) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.96)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(73.29) = 1.42, p = 0.318, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.52 to 3.12)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(71.68) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.16)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(74.18) = 1.39, p = 0.336, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.46 to 2.57)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(74.48) = 0.98, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.61)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(75.91) = 2.85, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.54 to 3.04)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(77.71) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.09)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(74.85) = 1.01, p = 0.630, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.27)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(70.93) = 1.22, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.24)

els

1st vs 2st

t(69.97) = 1.26, p = 0.427, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.49 to 2.14)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(69.95) = -2.56, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-4.84 to -0.60)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(70.84) = 1.44, p = 0.310, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.33 to 2.04)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(71.78) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.20)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(70.40) = 1.09, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.89 to 3.05)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(93.93) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.71)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(80.71) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.85)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(75.58) = 0.74, p = 0.924, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.57)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(76.42) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.16)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(71.47) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.92)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(83.57) = 1.73, p = 0.173, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.49)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(74.66) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.59)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(73.85) = -2.55, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.08 to -0.26)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(73.66) = -1.45, p = 0.303, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.65 to 0.26)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(74.45) = -1.81, p = 0.149, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.85 to 0.09)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(71.20) = -2.20, p = 0.061, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-5.00 to -0.25)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(97.56) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.45)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(88.46) = -1.02, p = 0.624, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.46 to 0.47)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(74.61) = 1.14, p = 0.519, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.11)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(74.35) = -1.49, p = 0.280, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.13)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(79.55) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.81)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(74.16) = 1.00, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.12)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(85.06) = -1.13, p = 0.520, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.32)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(68.68) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.22 to 1.58)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(74.32) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.90)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(73.07) = -0.73, p = 0.932, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.94)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(73.43) = 0.73, p = 0.932, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.49)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(71.80) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.16)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(74.34) = 1.02, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.29)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(74.64) = 0.92, p = 0.723, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.55)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(76.09) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.29)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(77.91) = -1.52, p = 0.265, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.47 to 0.20)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(75.01) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.07)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(71.04) = 0.97, p = 0.668, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.15)

els

1st vs 2st

t(70.07) = 0.93, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.92)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(70.05) = 1.01, p = 0.631, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.04 to 3.19)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(70.95) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.13)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(71.90) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.06)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(70.50) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.93 to 2.00)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(94.38) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.68)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(80.96) = 0.92, p = 0.722, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.55)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(75.76) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.49)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(76.61) = 0.86, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.09 to 2.77)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(71.59) = 1.08, p = 0.566, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.53)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(83.86) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.61)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(74.82) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.69)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(74.00) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.92)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(73.81) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.79)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(74.61) = 0.85, p = 0.798, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.39)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(71.31) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.22 to 2.53)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance